The additional argument I was given was that it would automatically synchronize the documents in the RFC Editing process. But I too don't care that much.
Regards
Brian Carpenter
On 10-Feb-22 09:00, Brian Rosen wrote:
<adding rfced-future>
I don’t care that much. I will note that -rfced-model assumes that this change is made, without having any normative statements about the matter, and “justification” isn’t usually a reason for a normative reference, but I’ll make the change if others want me to.
Brian
On Feb 9, 2022, at 2:55 PM, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 10-Feb-22 06:53, Bernard Aboba via Datatracker wrote:
Reviewer: Bernard Aboba
Review result: Almost Ready
This document has been reviewed as part of the transport area review team's
ongoing effort to review key IETF documents. These comments were written
primarily for the transport area directors, but are copied to the document's
authors and WG to allow them to address any issues raised and also to
the IETF
discussion list for information.
When done at the time of IETF Last Call, the authors should consider this
review as part of the last-call comments they receive. Please always CC
tsv-art@xxxxxxxx if you reply to or forward this review.
This document updates RFC 2026 so as to be compatible with the proposed
RFC Editor Model v3.
This document has no transport-related implications.
NITs:
"It no " -> "It is no"
Given that [I-D.iab-rfcefdp-rfced-model] provides the justification for the
change to RFC 2026, it seems like it should be a normative rather than an
informative reference.
That would be a downref. However, we decided to do exactly what you suggest
in draft-carpenter-rfced-iab-charter.
Brian
--
last-call mailing list
last-call@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
